Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 89 (615 MHz)






Marrakech 13, Us 6, Honda 5, Fung 4, Hwang 3, Lazarus 3, California 3, San Francisco 3, Mr. Duffy 2, Hurtado 2, Mr. Pachecko 1, Mr. Shahin 1, Scott Sanchez 1, Mr. Sanchez 1, Mr. Pacheco 1, Dennis Stewart 1, Jennine 1, Bashir 1, Lapp Hamm 1, The City 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    January 16, 2013
    5:30 - 6:00pm PST  

being proposed now. the front wall on the 4th floor has been setback 2' 6", this whole stair assembly in orange has been removed. as a kind of compensating factor the front bay window was moved forward about a foot. but reduced in width by 9". and then at the kind of first living level there was a pop-out inserted which projects another 5' 6" beyond what the stair assembly had. there is a stair going down to the yard. that section basically shows the changes that have been made. here is a rear yard again. the existing stair assembly, and what has been added, approximately 2' and 5 '6" on the second-floor pop-out. in the front just to clarify,
again this shows at the fourth floor, the setback. that concludes my comments. thank you commissioners. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the appellants now. go ahead. >> mr. stewart: >> good evening members of the board, my name is dennis stewart and i'm a [ra-ert/] round the corner. i would like to make two brief appeals on this one, as i think the board has already decided, but for the public record i do wish to reiterate for the reasons set forth in previous testimony. this building even with the small reductions in height is inconsistent to the department's codes, with regard to its compatibility with the
neighborhood. i want to say it for the public record this is not compatible with the neighborhood and sets a bad precedent for future decisions that will be based on a comparison with this building, assuming that you approve it. the second is a procedural objection to this, which i raised at the last meeting. and that is i take with due respect to commissioner honda, i do take umbridge with the fact that he is taking part in this. i would take note to assistant city attorney, subsequent to the oral statement this was cleared by the city attorney's office i filed a formal request with the city attorney and they are not in compliance with foya in terms of responding to my request. i conclude that this is a decision which i object to and
i object to with all due respect, commissioner honda, to your participation in this decision. because indeed, zephyr realty is involved. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. i will be brief and wanted to note we reviewed the most community revised plans were submitted to the board of appeals on january 10, 2013. the date on the revision set is january 7th,2013 and these comply with the planning code and i'm available. >> i'm sorry they do comply? >> they do comply. that is correct. thank you. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted.
commissioner i reviewed the drawings and they reflect what i remember of the proposed changes at that point in time and i'm prepared to move to uphold the permit and condition it on the documentation that has been provided to reflect the changes. is that the appropriate -- >> it sounds like what you want to do is grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition that it is revised, to reflect the changes. and i would ask just that plan set be noted by date. submitted to the board, which is january 10, 2013. >> okay. so moved. >> i'm inclined to move in that direction -- to go in that direction as well based on the testimony of the zoning administrator that it's code
compliant. >> the motion has been made if you could call the roll mr. pachecko. ex-we're upholding both permits the demolition and the site. motion from commissioner fung to uphold both permits and the condition is that they -- that the permits be revised with the revised plans dated with our stamp, january 10 2013. >> just the permit to erect the building needs to be revised, not the permit to demolish. >> do you want to separate votes? >> i think you can do one vote. >> we're upholding the site permit with the revised plan dates january 10. on that motion, from commissioner fung, president hwang? >> aye. >> thank you. commissioner hurtado is absent. vice president lazarus?
>> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4-0 and the demolition permit suprahold as-is and the site performance is uphold with those revised plans. thank you. >> calling item no. 7, appeal no. 12-14 1 gration wu versus the department of building inspection, subject property at 42 lapp hamm way. appealing the imposition of a penalty on november 13th, 2012tor construction work done would you tell us a permit. >> good evening. this is my first time to remodel the house. i hired a contractor. and i followed his instructions and i didn't know he didn't get a permit. right now i already got the building permit and i'm looking for the electricity and the plumbing contractors so i can get those two permits to fix the property. so i hope you
can reduce the penalty for me so i can have more resources to work on though fix this problem. thank you. >> excuse me. did you say you are looking for a replacement contractor? >> yes. >> how are you going to do whether or not the new contractor is able to file the appropriate permits? >> i already asked for recommendations and they are still looking for the proper ones. i haven't gotten one yet, but pretty soon i'm going to have one. >> okay. thank you. >> thanks >> mr. duffy? . good evening commissioners. congratulations on the new appointments. >> thank you. >> on this case we received a complaint that -- the department received a complaint on the 9th of october, 2012,
remodeling done without permit. we did go out. we opened a case on the 11th of october and we tried to get in. we were unable to enter. we left a 3-day notice. it took them until the 31st of october. we wrote a notice of violation and it was remodel of kitchen and bathroom without permits, obtaining permits called for start work inspection on october 31. the applicant then came in on the 13th of november, got an over-the-counter permit to comply with the notice. i believe the penalty and notice of was nine times on value of is $15,000, so it is in our code to put the nine times penalty on.
sometimes we do get them up here with paying the penalties. i would not be against a reduction, of some type. people always make the excuse that they didn't know that they needed a permit. there is a lot of resources in the department to find out if you need a permit or not. there is the website and other ways to find out. you also need a building permit, electrical permit and plumbing permit for this type of work. so i'm available for questions, but the penalty was properly imposed unfortunately. >> mr. duffy, are all of your complaints anonymous? >> no, not all. they are harder to investigate because we don't know where they are coming from. the complaints online, there is a lot of detail and a lot of people like to remain anonymous. i understand. it's about half-and-half. >> thank you. is there any department made by your department of which
particular contractors are doing unpermitted work through the city? do you keep a list? >> i wish we did:no with, we don't. in my experience i have seen the last three or four years, maybe with the economy, things are doing a lot more work without a permit and it annoys me when i hear a contractor didn't get a permit. they are licensed contractors and know for this type of work particularly. there is a loot of investigation time that goes into this and they are not big-money permits so to speak. but we are bound by city charter to investigate the complaints. there are -- to answer your question, we don't keep a list, but contractors should know about and advise homeowners when this happens. i saw they applied for another permit to legalize some rooms
on the ground floor which is not part of the violation and there seems to be a contractor in place on that permit and that permit has not been issued yet. i noticed that before i came up to the meeting. >> what is the name of that contractor? >> homeworks construction service, one bedroom and bathroom at ground floor. that permit has not been issued and still has to be reviewed by the planning department. it will probably be an over-the-counter permit, but there seems like there is somebody on boards anyways >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, miss wu, do you have anything further to say? have you three minutes of rebuttal, if you want to use it. okay. commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners i know that the property owner does not own other properties, is not involved in the industry and
therefore i would support a reduction of the penalty to the minimum that we can, which is two times. that is my motion. >> okay. mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll please. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to reduce the subject penalty to two times the regular fee. on motion president hwang? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0 and this penalty is reduced to two times the regular fee. >> before i call the next item, i'm curious if a mandarin interpreter is in the room? she wasn't expected until 6:00, so we'll call item no. 10,
appeal no. 12-104, bashir shahin doing business as marrakech moroccan restaurant, appealing the 30-day suspension of the tobacco sales permit. the reason for suspension, violation of state law and the san francisco health code which proprohibit the indoor smoking of tobacco products. director's case no. smk12-09 and we'll start with the appellant. you have seven minutes >> good evening, my name is bashir shahin, the owner of marrakech restaurant. thank you to the board of appeals for giving us a chance to express our thoughts and feelings. i am not here to argue or ask for anything unreasonable. just hoping that you will give us some leniency andtry to give us some mercy on this case, which is a small family business, trying to keep our doors open. we have been in business for the last 16 years.
i have clean record with all departments. for the last few years we have been hit very hard by the recession and economy and it's been hard to keep our doors as well. we like to comply with the ordinance, with any laws that come through. just this particular matter is kind of confusing and that is why we got into this argument. and we're hoping to resolve it and get better results from this. thank you very much. >> mr. shahin, this case has been continued a number of times. one of the reasons you have brought forth was to exhaust your inventory of tobacco. has that been accomplished? >> we removed most of the stuff. i bought since the health department allowed me to do the hooka lounge since 2005, i bought inventory and i had to fix the ceiling and put in fans and spent over $40,000 on the place, you know, by the time to
get it ready to be a lounge. besides the restaurant that we have. so i am complying with everything that you asked me for, but it takes time to get rid of all of the inventory. i bought a lot of stuff. i need to sell it and i'm just trying to get some leniency to try to sell the rest of the products. and hopefully we'll resolve in a good matter. >> thank you. >> thank you. miss young. >> good evening commissioners. congratulations on the appointments tonight. i am senior health inspector jennine young and work for the department of health. prior to the department issuing the director's order, which actually suspended the tobacco permit for marrakech for 30 days, environmental health has notified marrakech that smoking and smoking tobacco products inside a restaurant was prohibited by the local health
code, as well as the california labor law. and, in fact, we have issued -- the department of environmental health has issued five violations in letter in 2009, a notice to comply letter in 2010 and after i did an inspection in 2011 they received a notice of violation and in 2011 there was an abatement conference held at environmental health. and a decision letter was issued to the owners as well. so all five notices including the decision letter stated the same messages over and over. smoking is prohibited in all restaurants. and it's a violation of the san francisco health code and those notices stated that smoking tobacco products is pro[h-eubts/]ed in all restaurants and a violation of the carriage labor code. and the continued violation of the san francisco health code and california labor code would jeopardize the dph permits that
they held for their facility. in the 2011 decision, the decision letter ordered the owners to immediately cease and desist smoking within the enclosed areas of the restaurant. it also required them to immediately remove all the smoking equipment and devices from the restaurant. so in response to the 2011 decision letter, marrakech has sent an email stating that they stopped serving the hooka and we found out later that was not true. we started to receive complaints in may and june of 2012 and i went out july 21st and basically conducted another unannounced investigation and i saw one employee was attempted to hide two group of patrons smoking hooka in a private area of the restaurant. i also saw an employee carrying a hooka pipe and when he saw me he turned around and headed down a flight of stairs located
in the back of the dining area. then i did go down to the basement level, where they have the hooka pipes and hoses in the storage rooms. and were also open tobacco containers, toric-containing products open as well. based on this investigation she received a second notice of violation and they were ordered to appear at the director's hearing. it was at that hearing that their tobacco permit was supposed suspended for 30 days. i would like to say this hearing was continuesd because they wanted to reduce the inventory. i observed ten table as round the dining table and there were hooka pipes on all tables. there were about 20 patrons sitting around the tables, they were smoking. they were drinking.
they were eating and another 20 plus patrons in the middle of the dining room dancing to [ ing to music. there were several wait staff, serving staff and bartenders, too. so the department really respectfully requests the board to uphold the 30-day suspension, because we provided numerous opportunities for marrakech to come in compliance with the state and local laws. marrakech is a restaurant that had over three years to make change oz their practice n. november, 2011, marrakech acknowledged they would no longer violate the no smoking law, but willingly made the twice to continue violating both state and local laws. a suspension will not require marrakech to close, because they are a restaurant. the smoking usually starts about 10:30 or so. so they are not going to close:thank you. >> i have a couple of questions for you.
>> sure. >> how prevalent is this type of restaurant, where hooka is being smoked throughout the city? like how many are there to nour knowledge? >> left? >> yes >> for restaurants, marrakech and one another. there is a tobacco shop, but they are all in enforcement. there were 18. >> so do you know if the restaurants that had hooka continue to operate as restaurants that may sell tobacco, but don't have smoking on the premisings? >> yes, they are all racing as restaurants. the ones that closed were tobacco shops and didn't have any other type of business, but
the smoking. >> okay. thank you. >> my young, just to confirm, when you said january 13th, you were talking about several days ago? >> yes. >> just a couple of days ago >> you have three minutes for rebeautool. >> the first letter we received was confusing about everybody running the hookeau lounge, which is a cultural thing. they socialize and meet together. it's a different environment. the first time we complied and stopped everything and said we're going to pull everything out. as soon as i do that, the other places next to us, they start opening hooka lounges and improving and doing bars and putting hookas until today. so it's not fair for us that we
were the first people to operate and the second people come after us, they don't shut them down. it's like you allah the taxi to talk on the cell phone, but not allow the bus to talk on the california. it's not fair. why is it only us? i would like anybody to come and see us. we have a 99 score with the health department. so we're not here to cheat anybody or wheat the government or do anything like that. if we came in the wrong way, we apologize for that. it's not only us. it's a lost people doing that. it's a cultural thing. we need to try to see how we can resolve this. we will stop the hooka and
comply with the rules. >> on january 13th do you deny smoking was taking place in your restaurant? >> personally i wasn't there, if she says, so i will not deny that. >> thank you. >> miss young. >> we would only like to say that marrakech is a restaurant with employees. marrakech must comply with both california labor code and the san francisco health code and each time environmental health has visited the restaurant, patrons were not purchasing tobacco products only, but allowed to smoke inside the restaurant. when i spoke to the owners
directly, marrakech owners and operators made the choice to ignore environmental health's warnings and marrakech owners and operators knowingly and willingly continued to violate state laws by allowing their patrons to smoke inside the restaurant. the department does request the board to please uphold the 30-day suspension of the tobacco permit thank you. >> another question. could the department have issued a greater number of days suspension based on the information that you had at the time? >> no. >> thank you. commissioners the matter is submitted. >> based on the information presented and the factual history and legal standard, i think it's a fairly clear case that the suspension needs to be
upheld. >> i concur. >> i think the issue is how many opportunities has he been given? it's not an issue of what should culturally be allowed, but the fact that he has had notice multiple times and i would support the suspension. >> i'll move to uphold the suspension based on the record. >> we have a motion from the president to uphold this 30-day suspension on the basis of the record provided. on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado is absent. vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you.
the vote is 4-0. the 30-day suspension is uphold on that basis. >> president hwang i think we're still waiting on the 6:00 arrive of our term. interpreter >> the other three that remain, i don't think any of them would get done in five minutes, so i would suggest a 5-minute break. okay.